Initiative 1105 - which would have privatized the sale of spirits in Washington State, required a distributor to sell spirits, altered taxation, and made other changes - was, as expected, resoundingly defeated on election night. It took another twenty four hours to be announced, but Initiative 1100 - which would have also privatized the sales of spirits but made other sweeping changes to the state's liquor laws - was also defeated. With 72% of precincts reporting, 'No' votes led 'Yes' votes 52% to 48% on Initiative 1100. 'No' votes led 'Yes votes' 64% to 36% on 1105. Both margins were considered decisive. So what now?

As I wrote previously, the desire to privatize liquor sales is near universal in Washington State. The reason these bills failed is that they were about much more than that. Will the large percentage of 'Yes' votes for Initiative 1100 serve as a long overdue call to action? Will the state legislature finally act on this issue or will it continue to be seen as obstructionist, ineffective, and simply fall back into complacency?

While I did not support either Initiative 1100 or Initiative 1105, I do believe that the state must privatize liquor sales. It is in the state's best interest, it is in citizen's best interests, and it is in the restaurant and liquor industry's best interests. This is an across the board win. It can be done in a way that is revenue positive or neutral. It can be done in a way that does not negatively affect public safety. While some state workers would be affected, this is far from a reason to not do it.

Personally, I would like to see all parties who worked for and against initiatives 1100 and 1105 work together to pressure the legislature to produce a bill that privatizes liquor sales - a simple bill. A bill that we can all get behind. I have to believe that if some of the $26.5 million dollars that was spent in these two initiatives was put toward that effort, we might already have that outcome.

To Washington State legislators I say, time to get it done. Before another initiative comes along and does it for you in a manner even worse for the state than these ones. This is your wake-up call.

8
comments

You want your cake and you want to eat it to. EVERY initiative has something bundled with it that can be twisted to seem negative. Even the poll on your own website agrees that it should have passed. You can't pick and choose a magical bubblegum world. It's give and take in politics. There WILL NEVER be an initiative for privatizing liquor sales and that's it. Other things (incentives/cutbacks) will always be lumped in there. Take a political science class and stop living in your fantasy land.

Anon, perhaps you missed my previous posts and most of the one above that privatizing liquor sales has no place in an initiative. The initiative process has become a sham and a joke. Washington has become California north. Time to let the legislature legislate and stop playing citizen activists with corporate dollars.

Migg22, thanks for the comment. I could live with single issue initiatives. It would make it far easier for voters to understand the issue, although this would make it far less compelling to those who write them!

As a wine lover, I rarely drink hard liquor. However, seeing the state gouge consumers at a 51% profit margin and the ridiculous scare tactics (these same convenience stores already sell beer/wine) made it easy to vote yes.

I am disappointed to see this fail, as this means the status quo will continue for a long, long time. Sean, I think you are being naive in thinking the legislature will take this up. The same distributors and anti-alcohol groups against 1100 have lobbyist and dollars to stop anything in Olympia.

I hope I am wrong, but history says this state will remain one of the worst places to buy a hard drink in the nation.